Georgia's giant leap backwards

freako104 said:
i agreed that neither one was more valid. but both are ideas. both are beliefs. one has more to back it up I feel(evolution) the other as I said was blind faith
Click to expand...

Hang on, I think we are not only agreeing, but saying similar things differently. 'k, I'm done arguing, wanna go get a beer? :D
 
freako104 said:
the story of creationism is the theory.



science is based on observation and getting the knowledge you can from the observation.



1.Theory
2.Hypothesis
3.Experiment
4.Observe
5.Record
6.Analyse



that is the scientific method. I think it works better than blind faith since I think you actually try to prove or as i said disprove other theories.
Click to expand...

Sorry, freak but it goes this way.

1. Initial observation
2. Hypotheses which might explain the initial observation.
3. Further observation (including experimentation)
4. Anlayse data
5. Theory (self-consistent explanation of the data which makes further predictions to be proved or disproved by further observation)
6. Report and wait for others in your field to poke holes in your theory.

A theory is not a belief, it is a self-consistent, plausible explanation of observed data.

As I keep saying, though, evolution is a fact, the theory invoes how it actually works.

Someone else has already heard this, but try it this way: There are multiple theories on gravitation. Is gravity a fact or a theory?
 
Gonz said:
A theory holds water until one time it can be disproven.
Click to expand...

True. However a theory must come from observable data and make testable predictions.
A lot of scientists make a career out of poking holes in other peoples theories.

This is the problem I have with string "theory." It's really interesting, but it makes no testable predictions. It doesn't meet all the requirements. (It also requires 10 or more dimensions, I only see four)
 
As intereting as String Theory is, let's (the peons) figure out evolution before we move onto harder subjests.

This is a very good explanation of the definitions.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Click to expand...
 
Gonz said:
This is a very good explanation of the definitions.
Click to expand...

Good explanation but they left out the part about testable predictions. And evolution is a fact by their definition (same one I use). It has been repeatedly confirmed and is accepted byand large as true. :shrug:
 
freako104 said:
science uses fact but you need a theory and then you need the facts to prove your theory.
Click to expand...

This I think would make an interesting topic all of its own, but as this is OTcentral I figure it's as good here as anywhere :)

Science is about discovering and proving facts. Theories are an integral part of any science simply because a theory is necessary to develop a hypothesis about a phenomenon. The theory is either proved to be fact or disproved. This is science imho.

If the point of something is unprovable theories then we are talking about philosophy.

The problem now of course is that we have the ability to observe phenomena we have no way of proving and so we develop theories to explain them (take string theory as an example) this doesn't mean the science is only about the theory, just that we have as yet been unable to prove or disprove it. That act is what makes it a science, not the theory itself.


Hmmm probably should read the whole thread before posting in it... :lol2:
 
If the point of something is unprovable theories then we are talking about philosophy.
Click to expand...
See, now I would disagree that anything unproveable could be a theory. If it's unproveable, it is therefore untestable and fails to meet one of the criteria for a theory.
 
Gonz said:
ah, hell, chcr & I agree.

Once it's disproven, it's garbage.
Click to expand...

And me makes three :)

Gotnolegs, I think you may be confusing the lay use of the word "theory" with it's definition as it applies to science. In layman’s terms:

1- An apple falls off a tree.
2 - Someone sees apple fall of tree and comes up with the hypothesis that there is a force making the apple fall to the ground, not float up to the sky. He calls this force gravity.
3 - Over the next century, hundreds of people see apples fall off trees, do experiments do confirm that indeed, apples cannot float up to the sky, and that invisible Velcro is not responsible for bringing the apple to ground.
4 - The hypothesis of gravity becomes the theory of gravity and after more time and experimentation, a law.
5 - Another few centuries pass, and someone discovers that invisible garden gnomes grab apples as they fall off trees, and sit on them.
6 - The law of gravity is discarded, and the hypothesis of Invisible Garden Gnomes is born.

This is how science grows and evolves. Nothing is irrefutable. We don't call a theory a fact without absolutely incontrovertible evidence. The sky is blue. This is an observation, a fact. The sky is blue because of the way light scatters off of water molecules, this is a theory. Facts are observations; theories explain the "why".

The word theory in general usage is more akin to "hypothesis" in scientific terms.
 
You misunderstand me.

I am not saying that theories are not important to science, that most of what we know can be described using scientific theory. I am simply saying this is not the point of science.

The point of science in it's truest form is fact. Incontrovertable evidence.

A theory takes us part of the way but it is the fact we are searching for. Einstein knew this when he published his theory of relativity, it took the world by storm. It turned physics as we knew it on it's head. It came closer than we had ever come before to explaining the why of everything. However it was disprovable and that is why he spent the rest of his life searching for the one true law that explained the facts.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that the "theory" is not the purpose of science. The "fact" is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top